On Friday 9 March, European justice ministers examined the allocation of financial and human resources to central authorities as part of the rehash of the ‘Brussels IIb’ regulation on marriage, parental responsibility and removal of children to another country (see EUROPE 11584).
During the discussion, the ministries were clear that while they recognise the key role of the central authorities designated by the member states to help them apply the regulation and called for sufficient allocation of human and financial resources for them to be able to do their work, they reject any interference with national budgetary powers.
In its proposal, the European Commission introduced an article making an explicit demand for member states to ensure that the central authorities have enough human and financial resources.
This demand is currently implicit and arises from the proper application of the regulation, but it is not respected in all the member states. Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova says children have to be important enough for us to give them all the same advantages.
But this did not win over the vast majority of ministers, who opposed the addition of an article in the regulation, saying that the end would be better achieved in a more proportionate way by putting the demand in a recital, in order not to interfere with member states’ budgetary powers.
For the more sceptical countries such as Poland and Luxembourg, such a measure would be superfluous because they arise from general obligations on the member states to ensure the proper application of EU rules. Philippe Légliste-Costa, France’s Permanent Representative to the EU, mooted the idea of including the demand in a good practice guide.
The only country that really sided with the Commission’s proposal was the Czech Republic, with minister Robert Pelikan saying that practical experience in his country showed that often, the regulation’s aim fails because of lack of resources.
Portugal does not oppose the Commission’s proposal as long as it clearly indicates that it does not include any budgetary obligations on the member states. Slovakia doesn’t oppose it either, but feels that one should consider defining clear criteria and the potential consequences if the measure is not respected.
Estonia was very flexible, being open to each of the proposals put on the table. Estonian minister Urmas Reinsalu said the important thing was to find a solution.
The ministers were invited to explore other options for ensuring the central authorities’ effectiveness. A very wide majority of ministers called for the training of central authority staff to be fully financed by the European Union. Slovakia said the EU could also develop training methods that would then be copied at national level.
France said application of the regulation needed to be simplified, and the unnecessary stages removed. Légliste-Costa suggested that depending on the situation, it might be possible to choose between direct cooperation with the social services and family judges and the intervention of the central authorities.
The Bulgarian Presidency ended the meeting by noting the common desire to make progress on this question, stating that it might be possible to reach agreement during its presidency. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)